Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:55 pm  

Ferdy wrote: Zak makes a statement http://m.skysports.com/article/rugbyleague//9471909 Zak wrote: Personally, I don't think they've got enough evidence to do it because, if they did, they would have got me two or three weeks ago, wouldn't they? (Probably enough for a "bringing the game into disripute" charge, bearing in mind Hudgill, Pearson and many others have being fined for slagging the RFL) Followed by Zak wrote: Me mam dunt like it Really? Why is the club or his advisor not telling him to shut up

Ferdy wrote: Zak makes a statement http://m.skysports.com/article/rugbyleague//9471909 Zak wrote: Personally, I don't think they've got enough evidence to do it because, if they did, they would have got me two or three weeks ago, wouldn't they? (Probably enough for a "bringing the game into disripute" charge, bearing in mind Hudgill, Pearson and many others have being fined for slagging the RFL) Followed by Zak wrote: Me mam dunt like it Really? Why is the club or his advisor not telling him to shut up

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:57 pm  

...because until or unless the RFL actually charge him with something, he's free to say whatever he likes. I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with his statement, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Leeds actively backed him to put something out.

An incident almost two weeks ago and he hasn't even been charged? The evidence must be amazing.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:49 am  

Brilliant statement. Puts the RFL in the spotlight now regards the press. They questioned silverwood and Flanagan two weeks ago. A lip reader takes two weeks? Unbelievable

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:29 am  

frepneyboy wrote:

I dont remember any homophobic agaist Briscoe, the terms were greedy, judas, maybe even fat were used. Banter, as you'd call it.

Anyway back to Zak eh..

Unless you want to talk trawlers

Oh if you can't remember then it mustn't have happened, obviously! And I've never heard any songs about trawlers either. I don't stand in the South Stand so can't definitely say it didn't happen but I've never heard it. I have heard "Sing when you're fishing" and "You're poop and you stink of fish" though. Banter as you'd call it!

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:58 am  

Zak saying he doesn't think there's enough evidence, does that suggest that he knows he said it but that the tv footage is not clear enough?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 16, 2014 7:06 am  

The Eagle wrote:

Zak saying he doesn't think there's enough evidence, does that suggest that he knows he said it but that the tv footage is not clear enough?

I think the interview in the YEP is much better and clearer.

Last night when I saw the first media statements, I thought he should have just said nothing. But then again that's the other thing, had he not spoken to press he would have been in trouble again, due to it been an official conference.

However reading the YEP puts things more in context, and the bit you picked out says it differently, giving the two extremes, unlike yesterday's press release.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 16, 2014 7:07 am  

The Eagle wrote:

Zak saying he doesn't think there's enough evidence, does that suggest that he knows he said it but that the tv footage is not clear enough?

Nope, thats him saying that he's been accused of saying something by the governing authority that could be big trouble for his career and both he and his club are asking for the evidence, as is their right.

If a governing body is going to start accusing its members of behaviour that is likely to result in its members being penalised financially or by suspension WITHOUT producing evidence to back up the accusation then that governing body is surely in its dying throes and not fit for purpose ?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 16, 2014 7:42 am  

On the other hand you could look at it that the RFL do have evidence and they are carefully putting a case together that could not be challenged by the player or Leeds Rhinos.
If they had nothing then surely they would have said by now or within a day or so of looking at it.
Glass half full today it seems from me.
As for our Hull contributor.
I do go into the Southstand and have never heard us sing anything about trawlers.
Unlike some Hull fans who sing songs about a person`s colour or creed and homophobic songs about ex players of theirs.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 16, 2014 7:47 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

Nope, thats him saying that he's been accused of saying something by the governing authority that could be big trouble for his career and both he and his club are asking for the evidence, as is their right.

If a governing body is going to start accusing its members of behaviour that is likely to result in its members being penalised financially or by suspension WITHOUT producing evidence to back up the accusation then that governing body is surely in its dying throes and not fit for purpose ?

Correct, even if he has said it, the emphasis is on the RFL to prove that he has said it. It was just the way the quote came across to me. As Gotcha said seeing the full article it would probably come across differently

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:25 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

Nope, thats him saying that he's been accused of saying something by the governing authority that could be big trouble for his career and both he and his club are asking for the evidence, as is their right.

If a governing body is going to start accusing its members of behaviour that is likely to result in its members being penalised financially or by suspension WITHOUT producing evidence to back up the accusation then that governing body is surely in its dying throes and not fit for purpose ?

that's a hole in one